Since the infamous Joseph Smith-History passage has been raised again, I will quote it below:

JSH 18-20 wrote:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.

It looks to me that "all sects" in the broad sense, instead of the narrow sense of "all of the sects I, Joseph Smith, have recently checked out," is not only a legitimate reading of this text, but probably the better reading.

I agree. I don't see anything in the context that would indicate that this was restricted to religions in his vicinity or religions that he was currently aware of. Why would God, supposedly, be so constrained in his thinking anyway?

I agree. I don't see anything in the context that would indicate that this was restricted to religions in his vicinity or religions that he was currently aware of. Why would God, supposedly, be so constrained in his thinking anyway?

The gentler interpretation that Simon prefers is a relatively recent development.

I love how the LDS apologists and Internet Mormons view Mrs. Tanner, one of the sweetest old ladies on the planet, as some kind of anti-Mormon super villain. How does that saying go about your enemies defining you?

Is that kind of like the sweet old man down the street who just loves everyone and loves children, but turns out to be a child molester?

Sick and evil is still sick and evil, no matter how "righteous" one seems otherwise from their sick actions.It's like the Joseph Smith / Jesus Christ DVD put out by Evangelicals. Ya, you could see and "feel" the love they had for Mormons, but their every word about our Faith and about us was a LIE, a perversion, and simply made me sick to my stomach.

Christian anti-mormons are no different than that wonderful old man down the street who turns out to be a child molester. It is the same kind of SICKNESS..... And their righteousness outside of those fruits DO NOT "justify" them, because it is simply so insidious.

Is that kind of like the sweet old man down the street who just loves everyone and loves children, but turns out to be a child molester?

Sick and evil is still sick and evil, no matter how "righteous" one seems otherwise from their sick actions.It's like the Joseph Smith / Jesus Christ DVD put out by Evangelicals. Ya, you could see and "feel" the love they had for Mormons, but their every word about our Faith and about us was a LIE, a perversion, and simply made me sick to my stomach.

Christian anti-Mormons are no different than that wonderful old man down the street who turns out to be a child molester. It is the same kind of SICKNESS.....

Wow, so Sandra Tanner is sick and evil, like a child molester. What's with all the hate, Obiwan?

The gentler interpretation that Simon prefers is a relatively recent development.

It makes God out to be an idiot, as though he might be thinking church X is OK, but since Joe did not attend one of their revivals or church X was in the next town over, he decided not to mention them.

I think Joe framed the question clearly enough. Which one out of all of the sects is correct? Surely God knew what he was asking.

Do you consider it hate speech to say that all non-Mormons are corrupt?

Are these claims different in any way other than the target of criticism?

And what Mormon has EVER said "all non-Mormons are corrupt"???Thus you can't compare. You are misrepresenting Mormons trying to compare apples and oranges.Further, the Tanners didn't simply say that, they bear false witness of Mormonism, cherry picking things to make false claims of us. Hey, if people just said Mormons were corrupt, that's a statement of belief, and that's fine. Everyone has the right to their views. But, they don't have a moral right to be bigots, to bear false witness of others, etc.

I think that the Tanners are overzealous in their desire to expose Mormonism for what they believe that it is, but "hate", I don't think so.

You would be wrong.

Quote:

Is it hate or zealotry when a person exhibits desires to evangelize their beliefs?

That's NOT "only" what they are doing. If they were that would be okay.

Quote:

If a person's belief is that their version of Christianity is being corrupted by another sect, then it could easily be understood that such a person has only honest motives to help others be not deceived.

Again, that's NOT "only" what they are doing. If it was, that would be okay.There is nothing inheriantly wrong with "comparative religion", for Mormons do it ourselves sometimes.What is wrong, is to "falsely compare". That is what the Tanners do, and in fact ALL anti-mormons do. The rare honest critic however doesn't do this, thus we know it's possible to actually be an "honest" critic.

Quote:

I know that as a Mormon missionary, me and the other 180 missionaries in my mission helped every Catholic believer to see that their religion was lacking and ours more valid.

And such is a reasonable, fair, and valid action, which is why Mormons do it, and anti-mormons don't.

Quote:

I know that I didn't proselytize with hate, despite convincing dozens of persons that Catholicism was wrong enough that another religion was needed.

You're right, you didn't..... And that is the point. You presented additional views and ideas, which showed how another Faith simply didn't have the full truth or the correct truth. That is a perfectly reasonable action. Anti-mormons however, present a "distorted" Mormonism, and then proceed to attack and degrade it.

Mormons have nothing wrong with competing ideas, and sides competing against each other. There is nothing "immoral" with that. What is immoral is what anti-mormons do, that is because of their hatred, they pervert and present a masterfully distored Mormonism, that they they easily attack. That IS WRONG..... and that IS Immoral!

Do you consider it hate speech to say that all non-Mormons are corrupt?

Are these claims different in any way other than the target of criticism?

And what Mormon has EVER said "all non-Mormons are corrupt"???Thus you can't compare. You are misrepresenting Mormons trying to compare apples and oranges.Further, the Tanners didn't simply say that, they bear false witness of Mormonism, cherry picking things to make false claims of us. Hey, if people just said Mormons were corrupt, that's a statement of belief, and that's fine. Everyone has the right to their views. But, they don't have a moral right to be bigots, to bear false witness of others, etc.

Get the difference?

Joseph Smith said it of followers of all other religions. (He claims that is what God told him.)

I'm not an expert on the Tanners, but I haven't seen any evidence that they intentionally misrepresented anything. Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that they may have made some mistakes. But I don't have any evidence that they were lying or that they didn't have good intentions.

I find that when I am in a social situation where there are Mormons and they start talking about their church, they ask me have I heard about the church I respond "been there, done that". This is followed by questions as to why I left. I respond because I felt the evidence against the Book of Abraham. Book of Mormon and the First Vision convinced me that the claims of the LDS church as the true church were not valid. I am happy where I am now, I maintain an interest in LDS matters, just as I do on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, C S Lewis, and other matters relating to the Bible. I can understand Kevin Graham feelings. He was in the LDS church a long time, some of that as an apologist. I suppose he feels he wasted his time. I once saw a defination of angry as either fear, frustration or hurt. I think most exlds feel these emotions.

_________________Israeli Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein " For if there were no patriarchs no Exodus,no conquest of Canaan -and no prosperous united monarchy under David & Solomon- can we say that early biblical Israel as described in the Five Books of Mosesand the books of JoshuaJudgesand Samuel ever existed at all?" The Bible Unearthed p.124.

Joseph Smith said it of followers of all other religions. (He claims that is what God told him.)

I'm not an expert on the Tanners, but I haven't seen any evidence that they intentionally misrepresented anything. Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that they may have made some mistakes. But I don't have any evidence that they were lying or that they didn't have good intentions.

No he didn't.... He said the creeds and professors were corrupt, actually again God said this.Further, that is a statement of belief. Wouldn't it be a correct statement if it was Christ speaking, and if the various religions out there were in fact "man-made", that men had took authority unto themselves that God never gave??? I don't know of any "revelation" that gave anti-mormons the right to attack other Faiths, especially specifically, do you???I'll repeat again.... Do you understand the difference between bigotry and simply negative personal views of another thing?LDS are perfectly happy if other Christians think our leaders are corrupt, or our creeds were an abomination. Sure, it's not a "friendly" statement, but it doesn't automatically make them a bigot, nor LDS bigots when we ever utter a negative word about other religions. What makes bigotry is other related ideology's and fruits.

You can't compare..... The anti-mormon attempt to pull any negative thing from 180 years of fully recorded LDS history as if that "proves" Mormons are just as bigoted toward Christians is simply LAME and FALSE. It's a perfect example of what anti-mormons do. They take a little truth and use it to tell great lies. For example, to every one negative statement about other faiths usually IN GENERAL not even specific like anti-mormonism does, there are 100's of positive statements about other Faiths and their people.

Are you really intellectually incapable of seeing the difference?You're apparently a "dad of a Mormon".... Ever asked your son if he notices a difference between how Mormonism acts toward other faiths compared to how other faiths act toward Mormonism? See, he's actually IN Mormonism, so he likely will see it.

Further, I've actually been in your faiths, AND I've been in Mormonism. Not only that, I've been an anti-mormon, and I've studied anti-mormonism and Mormon scholarship for years. And guess what..... THERE IS NO COMPARISON..... I know you want to make yourself "feel good" in thinking Mormons are just as bigoted or anywhere close to that like other Christians are, but you are so very wrong.

If Mormons start attacking other religions, you would be able to notice the DIFFERENCE....

Yes. And if Obiwan did, he would not have denied that JSJr called followers of other faiths corrupt while claiming professors were corrupt.

Which professors to you think God was referring to? All professors, of every religion and academic discipline? It seems pretty silly for God to speak in such encompassing terms to a farm boy who rarely left his immediate area.